From: ufo777@webtv.net (ufo777)
Subject: [Illusions] Fwd: Dec. 30 column -- Houdini Bill
Date: 29 Dec 1998 23:45:06 -0500
To: illusions@bticc.net

-=> Illusions Mailing List <=-


--WebTV-Mail-801649762-381
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

VIN Vin vin       

Sincerely, Patricia  http://www.serve.com/ufo7
"If you suppress The Truth it becomes your enemy...if you expose the
truth it becomes your weapon.Col Corso"                   


--WebTV-Mail-801649762-381
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from mailsorter-101-3.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.99) by
	postoffice-262.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:29:13
	-0800 (PST)
Return-Path: 
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com (ezlink.com [199.45.150.1]) by
	mailsorter-101-3.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id RAA09167; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:28:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from list@localhost) by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id
	SAA08411; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:26:00 -0700
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:26:00 -0700
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:26:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: vin@dali.lvrj.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vinsends@ezlink.com
From: Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz)
Subject: Dec. 30 column -- Houdini Bill
Resent-Message-ID: <"qMMW83.0.tu1.w2OYs"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: vinsends@ezlink.com
X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/612
X-Loop: vinsends@ezlink.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vinsends-request@ezlink.com


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED DEC. 30, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Still seeking magic spell to make impeachment go away


    If there is no other lasting legacy from his checkered tenure in
Washington, Bill Clinton may accomplish one thing: He may well persuade the
American people not to elect another lawyer-president for 20 years.

  No one has ever denied Bill Clinton is brilliant, in a child-prodigy kind
of way. Instead, the debate so far has focused on whether the character
flaw big enough to bring him down will prove to be his inability to keep
his trousers zipped, or his arrogance.

  Only this month did it become clear that a brinksman/president in massive
trouble for biffing the staff in the Oval Office (while he knew Paula
Jones' snoops were at the keyhole) and lying about it, had proceeded to lie
yet again -- once again in a context where he was bound to get caught --
this time in describing the timing and reasons for his most recent decision
to bomb Iraq on the eve of his own impeachment.

  Only at that point did serious commentators start to ask a brand new, and
somewhat more urgent, question.

  "Is he nuts?"

  Bill Clinton is both a lawyer and a politician. But as a lawyer, he will
never rest in the Hall of Fame next to Clarence Darrow, or even Johnnie
Cochrane. He has proven far more successful as a politician. Therefore, one
might expect Mr. Clinton to confront the most serious threat to his career
and his legacy with an ear tuned primarily to how things play politically,
rather than developing the kind of defenses usually only put forth in hopes
of winning extra points for "creativity" on some law school exam.

  Yet this president continues to do the latter. Take just as one instance
his unwavering insistence that -- having cleverly appealed and gotten a
change in the definition of "sexual relations" to be used during his
deposition in the Paula Jones sex harassment suit -- he can now smugly
insist he never lied (even later, on nationwide TV) when he said he "didn't
have sex with that woman." (This despite the fact the two of them obviously
got up to (start ital)something(end ital) which resulted in a semen stain
on the young lady's dress.)

 In the practice of law, there are times when such absurd hair-splitting
may be rewarded. A corporate attorney's goal may sometimes be to stretch
out a losing case with frivolous arguments until the other side (facing
bankruptcy) finally folds its tents, or offers a settlement.

  But such lawyers do not daily submit their actions to the judgment of the
public, under the harsh spotlights of the press.

  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, sticks with, "We changed the
definitions, nyah nyah nyah," and apparently expects an admiring public to
continue clapping their hands with delight at his schoolboy cleverness.

  Now, in the latest version of such tone-deaf posturing, the White House
suggests it may go to the Supreme Court yet again, this time contending the
recent impeachment of the president by the House of Representatives
shouldn't "count" because the House met in lame duck session, before those
representatives newly elected in November could take their seats.

 At the instinctive level, the argument rings hollow because the
president's party still lost the 1998 elections -- it's not as though any
clear Democratic majority is chafing to take its seats and shower the
president with laurels (and fresh virgins) next month.

  Constitutionally, as well, one seeks in vain for any clause indicating
the "lame duck" Congress may not meet or conduct regular business between
the elections and inauguration day. (Would the president really contend
that if Pearl Harbor had been attacked in an even-numbered year, Congress
would have had to wait more than a month before declaring war?)

  But far more important than the merits of this particular pettifogging
argument -- aside from the fact it stands virtually no chance of success --
is the question of why the president would try it.

 This is a White House whose mouthpieces have droned on for years about how
Kenneth Starr and now congressional Republicans are dragging this thing
out, wasting unnecessary taxpayer money, while all the president wants to
do is cooperate and get it all over with as quickly as possible so he can
get back to "doing the job."

  Yet at every stage -- even when the White House expresses confidence that
Senate Republicans lack the votes for removal -- who is it who dynamites
another tree across the path of the advancing impeachment process? The same
White House that complains about how long it all takes!

  Even the man on whom Bill Clinton may eventually have to depend as his
main champion, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., warned the
president on Dec. 27 that any attempt to challenge the House impeachment
vote on procedural grounds could backfire.

  Such a challenge of the House vote "would delay the process, politicize
the environment -- and I don't think it would succeed," Daschle warned
during an appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press."

  Even his friends are now warning the president: Enough of the fancy
footwork. Face up to the charges, make the best defense you can, and then
either complete your dishonored presidency with a properly chastised
demeanor, or else prepare to promptly depart with at least as much grace as
Richard Nixon.

  Presidents have come and gone before. The nation will endure. There are
more important things in the world than the political survival of William
Jefferson Clinton. And one of the main requirements of the office of the
presidency is the ability to realize that.


Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web
sites for the Suprynowicz column are at
http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The column is syndicated in the United
States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas
Nev. 89127.

***



Vin Suprynowicz,   vin@lvrj.com

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872

The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not
get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases
to discriminate between good and evil.  He becomes a slave in body and
soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt
against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943

* * *



--WebTV-Mail-801649762-381--

-=> Send 'subscribe' to illusions-request@bticc.net <=-
-=> Posted by:  ufo777@webtv.net (ufo777) <=-